Climate Change

From: RealClear Energy

By: Joseph Toomey

Date: September, 2022

Energy Inflation Was by Design

FOREWORD
by Rupert Darwall

The West is experiencing its third energy crisis. The first, in 1973, was caused by the near-quintupling of the price of crude oil by Gulf oil producers in response to America’s support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war. Their action brought an end to what the French call the trente glorieuses-the unprecedented post-World War II economic expansion. The second occurred at the end of the 1970s, when Iran’s Islamic revolution led to a more than doubling of oil prices. This again inflicted great economic hardship, but the policy response was far better. Inflation was purged at the cost of deep recession. Energy markets were permitted to function. High oil prices induced substitution effects, particularly in the power sector, and stimulated increased supply. In the space of nine months, the oil price cratered from $30 a barrel in November 1985 to $10 a barrel in July 1986. It’s no wonder that the economic expansion that started under Ronald Reagan had such long legs.

This time is different. The third energy crisis was not sparked by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies or by Iranian ayatollahs. It was self-inflicted, a foreseeable outcome of policy choices made by the West: Germany’s disastrous Energiewende that empowered Vladimir Putin to launch an energy war against Europe; Britain’s self-regarding and self-destructive policy of “powering past coal” and its decision to ban fracking; and, as Joseph Toomey shows in his powerful essay, President Biden’s war on the American oil and gas industry.

Hostilities were declared during Joe Biden’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. “I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel,” candidate Biden told a climate activist in September 2019, words that the White House surely hopes get lost down a memory hole. Toomey’s paper has all the receipts, so there’s no danger of that. As he observes, Biden’s position in 2022 resembles Barack Obama’s in 2012, when rising gas prices threatened to sink his reelection. Obama responded with a ruthlessness that his erstwhile running mate lacks. He simply stopped talking about climate and switched to an all-of-theabove energy policy, shamelessly claiming credit for the fracking revolution that his own EPA tried to strangle at birth.(continue reading)

Energy Inflation Was by Design

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Winston Churchill

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

History: a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes
Merriam-Webster

History does not repeat itself identically because too many factors surrounding events differ or are subject to change during and after the events. History is easier to understand the more recent it is because more detail regarding an event is available for analysis and the factors surrounding the event have had less time to change. The ideal situation is the ability to analyze a series of events as they unfold in real-time, on their way to becoming history.

We currently have the opportunity to analyze several series of events regarding the transition from conventional sources of energy to renewable plus storage energy systems based on wind and solar generation. These series of events have occurred in two different states in the US and in two different nations in Western Europe. While each series of events was and is impacted by a unique set of surrounding factors, they share several common characteristics.

Each series of events involved aggressive introduction of renewable generation, while virtually ignoring electricity storage and relying on conventional generation to provide backup power when the intermittent renewable generation was either unavailable or operating below rating plate capacity.

Each series of events involved premature closure of conventional generating capacity, primarily coal and nuclear generation, thus reducing the backup capability of the remaining conventional generation.

Each series of events involved an unusual, but not unprecedented, weather event which significantly reduced the availability of the intermittent renewable generation capacity for a period of several days. These weather events included wind droughts in California and western Europe and unusually cold weather in Texas.

Each of these series of events has been accompanied by a significant increase in electric energy prices, despite government assurances that the transition to renewable generation would reduce electricity prices. These price increases are largely the result of the fact that the renewable generation is redundant capacity, since it continues to require equivalent conventional generation capacity as backup.

The consequences of these series of events in Western Europe have been aggravated by Russian reductions in natural gas deliveries, which then reduced the available natural gas combined-cycle generation output. This has resulted in numerous business and industry closures or output reductions due to reduced competitiveness or insufficient energy availability. Several Western European nations have altered planned conventional generation closures and begun reopening closed conventional generation.

States and nations which have not yet experienced similar series of events and their effects have the opportunity to learn from this history as it unfolds around them in real-time. Scheduled conventional generation plant closures are being deferred and expansion of electricity storage capacity is being re-evaluated. Continuing to do the same things is being questioned.

From: Energy Talking Points

By: Alex Epstein

Date: October 5, 2022

25 myths about extreme weather, refuted

With Hurricane Ian, the media have once again put forward the narrative that fossil fuels make extreme weather danger worse—and that fossil fuel supporters like Governor Ron Desantis are to blame.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Myth 1: The world is experiencing unprecedented danger from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels.

Truth: The world is experiencing unprecedented safety from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels—because fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits overwhelm any negative climate side-effects.

Myth 2: The media and its designated experts are accurately reporting on fossil fuels and extreme weather.

Truth: The media and its “experts” are:
1. totally ignoring how fossil fuels make us safer than ever from extreme weather
2. wildly overstating fossil fuels' negative impact on weather.

Myth 3: The effect of fossil fuels on extreme weather danger is solely negative.

Truth: Not only can warming from fossil fuels have significant benefits (fewer cold deaths) but the low-cost energy fossil fuels provide for billions gives us an unprecedented ability to master extreme weather. (continue reading)

25 myths about extreme weather, refuted

“That's why I think we need to recognize it has to be about innovation instead. If we focus on making green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it, then we can get everybody on board, and we can do so very, very cheaply. So, we can spend less money and do much more good by investing in research and development, rather than focusing on what has failed for the last 20 years”. - Bjorn Lomborg

Energy has been a critical factor in improving humans’ quality of life and lifespan. Lomborg has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the availability of adequate energy, clean water and sanitation to improve the quality of life in developing nations. He has also criticized the developed nations’ focus on investments in current technology intermittent renewable electricity generation, which he views as relatively less important.

Lomborg’s focus on innovation to make “green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it” makes eminent good sense. Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of the path being followed by the UN, EU, UK, US, Canada and Australia. The UN is demanding and the developed nations are forcing an accelerated conversion of their energy economies to reliance on intermittent wind, solar and electricity storage. These conversions are being driven, not by citizen demand, but rather by legislation and regulations requiring replacement of fossil fuels for all energy end uses with renewable generation and storage. They are also being supported by government incentives which have been available for decades.

This enforced transition has resulted in dramatic increases in energy prices in these countries, despite government and developer assertions that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. It is also leading to impending shortages of energy, energy consumption restrictions and electric grid unreliability and instability. These issues are also being aggravated in Western Europe by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s use of the natural gas it sells to those nations as a geopolitical bargaining tool, reducing gas deliveries below contracted volumes.

The current situation, rather than “making green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it”, is making green energy so expensive that eventually no one will want it. In the process, it is also making fossil fuel generation more expensive, since fossil generators are required to provide backup for the intermittent renewables when they are not generating, causing the fossil generators to be operated for fewer hours and to generate less power while their fixed costs remain constant.

The same governments are also forcing a transition to electric vehicles, again driven by legislation and supported by incentives for vehicle purchase and for installation of vehicle charging stations. However, the EVs are more expensive than internal combustion engine vehicles and there are growing concerns about battery cost and life. EVs have also been plagued recently by a rash of battery fires in personal vehicles, light trucks and transit buses. These fires spread rapidly and are virtually impossible to extinguish. Several jurisdictions are considering banning parking and charging EVs in parking structures because of this issue.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Nicola Scafetta

Date: September 25, 2022

CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion

Two publications examining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have recently been published in Climate Dynamics:

Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures.

Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence.

These two papers are significant because they take different but complimentary approaches and achieve the same result – ECS <3°C. Scafetta (2022a) extends and confirm Scafetta (2022b) previously published in GRL.

Lewis study was discussed in a previous post, let us here briefly present the main findings of Scafetta (2022).

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (phase 6) (CMIP6) global circulation (GCM) models project equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values ranging from 1.8 to 5.7°C. To reduce this range, the 38 GCM were divided into low (1.5<ECS<3.0 °C), medium (3.0<ECS<4.5°C), and high (4.5<ECs<6.0°C) ECS subgroups and their accuracy and precision were evaluated in hindcasting the average global surface warming observed from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021. The study used global surface temperature records are ERA5-T2m, HadCRUT5, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and the satellite-based lower troposphere global temperature UAH-MSU lt v6 record was added as well. (continue reading)

CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion

Observing and analyzing climate and climate change is an interesting experiment. The experimentalist can establish the events and characteristics to be observed and/or measured, the timing of the start of the observation period and the timing of the end of the observation period. However, the experimentalist has no control over the design of the experiment, which has been ongoing since before the observation period and will continue after the end of the observation period.

The observation of the climate experiment must be conducted and recorded with extreme care, since the experiment cannot be repeated in the event of an observational or measurement problem. Missed observations and unmeasured or inaccurate data cannot be replaced by running another test, since the test conditions cannot be duplicated. No period during the duration of the experiment will ever reoccur.

Weather has been of concern to humans because of the positive and negative impacts it has on their lives. Instrumental monitoring of temperature began with the Central England Temperature record in the mid-1600s, expanded to the US and several other countries by the mid-1800s and became nearly global in the mid-1900s. Satellite monitoring of global tropospheric temperature began in 1979. Regular monitoring of precipitation began in the mid-1700s and became nearly global in the mid-1900s. Extensive regular monitoring of sea level began in the early 1900s. Instrumental monitoring of atmospheric CO2 concentrations began in the mid-1950s. The global instrumental record is relatively short (~70 years) and still does not provide complete coverage. However, it is the basis upon which the theory of anthropogenic climate change has been developed; and, the basis upon which the climate models and the model projections of future climate change have been developed.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change, as exemplified by the outputs of the various CMIP6 climate models, does not agree well with the experiment, as exemplified by comparison of the projections of the models and observations, as shown below in a series of graphs from a paper co-authored by Ross McKittrick and John Christy, shown below.

Figure 3 - Trends and 95% CIs for individual models (red dots and thin bars), CMIP6 mean (red dot and thick bar), and observational series (blue). Horizontal dashed line shows mean satellite trend.

Clearly, the projections of the global and tropical temperature anomaly trends produced by the CMIP6 climate models do not agree well with the observational data series. Therefore, by Feynman’s criteria, they are wrong. The CMIP6 model ensemble has falsified itself, as was the case with the CMIP5 models. The CMIP6 models projected temperature anomaly changes as much as four times the observed temperature anomaly changes.

Clearly, if the theory is wrong, as embodied in the CMIP6 climate models, it is not a reasonable basis for precipitous climate actions, as are being insisted upon by the UN and implemented by numerous nations. It is essential that an accurate theory be developed and tested before precipitous climate actions are implemented unnecessarily.

By: Tom Nelson

The earth has a single atmosphere. There is reputedly a “scientific consensus” that the earth’s climate is being changed by human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other trace gases and that these climate changes will produce adverse results. The “scientific consensus” is that these emissions must cease to avoid the perceived adverse impacts. The UN has hosted a series of Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to develop plans to address the issue and solicit national commitments to reduce emissions.

The perceived climate change has been measured by numerous agencies and analyzed by numerous scientists, much of whose research has been analyzed and reported by the IPCC. The IPCC technical reports do not document a “climate crisis”. The IPCC Summary for Policymakers alleges greater concern for the future effects of climate change than the supporting technical reports. The UN, however, perceives a “crisis”, purportedly based on the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

National governments in the EU, UK, US, Canada and Australia have concluded that the ongoing climate change represents a “crisis” and are pursuing efforts to eliminate carbon dioxide, methane and other trace gas emissions from their economies by 2050, thus achieving “Net Zero” emissions. These efforts require major changes throughout their energy economies. Governments are promoting the promised reduced cost of renewable generation, though their experience has been increased costs. At present, reliable renewable generation requires the application of technology which does not exist or is not commercially available at scale at reasonable cost. However, governments continue to pursue these efforts, apparently anticipating that the necessary technology will become available when it is needed.

National governments in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa have also participated in the UN COPs and given “lip service” to national commitments to reduce emissions. These national commitments are generally dependent upon funding from the developed nations for climate change mitigation, adaptation and reparations for perceived damages. This funding has yet to materialize at the levels demanded by the developing nations.

The national governments in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa do not perceive climate change as a “crisis” which requires them to totally revise their energy economies to reduce emissions. They have decided that economic development is more important for their nations than reducing emissions. They continue to build new fossil fuel power generation and industrial production infrastructure, frequently relying on coal as their primary fuel. This economic development results in rapidly increasing emissions, not only of “greenhouse gases”, but also of criteria pollutants which adversely impact air quality in those nations.

Climate change is a global phenomenon, though its effects vary regionally to some extent. However, on a global basis, climate change is either a “crisis” or it is not. The nations which are home to more than half of the world’s population are not treating climate change as a crisis. These positions seem to be consistent with the scientific assessment of the IPCC technical reports, while the “crisis” assessments of the UN and other national governments seem overwrought.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Gianluca Alimonti, Luigi Mariani, Franco Prodi & Renato Angelo Ricci (The European Physical Journal Plus)

Date: September 22, 2022

A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming

Abstract

This article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet. It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends.

Introduction

The average surface temperature of our planet has increased by about one degree centigrade from the pre-industrial era and various studies highlight variations in cloud cover, precipitation, relative humidity and wind speed. This article reviews recent bibliography on some extreme weather events by comparing them with time series in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is found. (continue reading)

A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming

Intermittent renewable generation displaces a portion of the output of conventional coal and natural gas generators, but does not replace those generators. However, depending on intermittent renewable market penetration, the annual output of the conventional generators is reduced and the operation of some generators might be suspended, particularly during the shoulder months.

The reduced operation of these conventional generators increases the unit cost of their output because the fixed costs of the plants and the labor costs of operating and maintaining the plants remain relatively unchanged, but must be allocated to lower generation output. Unit fuel costs also increase slightly as modulated or intermittent operation reduce generator efficiency.

Uncertainty regarding required generator output creates fuel supply issues for the conventional generators. Coal plants maintain a coal pile on the generation site, from which coal is moved to the steam boiler. The coal in the pile represents an unrecovered expense for the generator. Therefore, the pile must remain large enough to meet demand without burdening the generator with excessive unrecovered expense throughout the year. While coal generators can load-follow over a wide range of output, restarting a coal generator from a “cold start” can take 10 or more hours. A decision to shut down a coal plant must take this restart time into account.

Natural gas generators do not maintain on-site fuel supply, but rely on contemporaneous pipeline fuel delivery. This typically has not been an issue when adequate pipeline capacity and adequate gas quantities are available. However, with variable or interruptible generator operation, the generator cannot enter into firm, fixed-price contracts for natural gas delivery and is reluctant to contract for firm pipeline capacity. Therefore, natural gas generators typically rely on interruptible pipeline capacity and purchase their natural gas in the spot market as required.

However, changes in the market are having an impact on this gas supply scenario. Numerous utilities with significant coal generation capacity will be required to retire those generators by 2030 to meet the Administration’s emission reduction goals. Several of these utilities are considering adding natural gas generators to replace the coal generating capacity. However, the Administration’s actions limiting oil and gas exploration and production will limit future gas availability, while its resistance to new natural gas pipeline construction will limit access to natural gas for future natural gas generators.

As natural gas production declines, the quantity of natural gas available in the spot market will also decline, increasing the spot market price and reducing generator access to fuel when required. This situation manifested in Texas in 2021, when high gas demand for heating in very cold weather dramatically reduced spot market gas availability and restricted gas plant generation. This problem was compounded by difficulties in restarting inoperative gas generators which had not been winterized.

This issue will become more critical as the market penetration of intermittent renewables increases and as the US energy market transitions to ‘all-electric everything” until grid-scale storage is available to support the intermittent generation. There remains a risk that storage capacity additions lag behind the loss of conventional generation capacity.

From: American Energy Alliance

By: Thomas Pyle

Date: May 26, 2022

100 Ways Biden and the Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas

Joe Biden and the leadership of the Democratic party have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase. Since Biden took office, his administration and Congressional Democrats have taken over 100 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America.

32 of these anti-energy proclamations were enacted after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which Biden regularly touts as an excuse for rising gas prices.

This is exactly what the Green New Deal agenda is, making the sources of energy needed every day for families around the country too expensive to afford.

The Democratic plan for lower gas prices is simple: blame everyone else, buy an electric vehicle, and don’t be poor. The Biden administration has made it clear they value the support of the radical environmental lobby more than lowering prices at the pump.

Below is a list of 100 explicitly anti-energy actions taken by the administration since Biden took office last January. (continue reading)

100 Ways Biden and the Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas

The reliability of the electric utility grid depends upon the availability of generation output equal to grid demand at all times. Historically, this has been accomplished by operating numerous generators at somewhat below full capacity, so that the output of those plants could be rapidly increased in the event of a significant increase in grid demand or the loss of a generator due to equipment failure. The reliability issue is most critical during periods of peak demand. Electric utilities typically have maintained a capacity reserve margin of approximately 15-20% relative to their peak demand to assure that grid demand could be met in the event of the loss of a generator.

Nuclear generators are typically base-loaded because of their low operating costs and their limited suitability for load following. Coal generators have typically been used for both base load and intermediate load applications. Natural gas combined-cycle generators offer flexible response to load changes and are the first to be adjusted to match changing demand. Natural gas simple-cycle turbines offer even faster response, but are rarely operated except during periods of peak demand because of their lower efficiency and thus higher operating costs.

The introduction of intermittent renewable generation to the existing electric utility grid requires several changes in the historical approaches to grid management. Unlike conventional generation systems, the output of intermittent renewable generators such as wind turbines and solar collectors can change frequently and uncontrollably throughout the day, requiring more rapid and somewhat less predictable response from conventional generation assets. Intermittent renewable generation can also be unavailable for periods of hours or days as the result of weather conditions.

Conventional generation assets must be available to meet grid demand during periods when either solar or wind output is unavailable or significantly reduced by weather conditions. At current levels of solar generation market penetration, the predictable unavailability of solar generation from late afternoon until morning is only an issue in the late afternoon / early evening period when the grid experiences what is referred to as the ”duck curve”, when solar generator output drops as residential and small commercial demand increases. This issue is beginning to be addressed with the introduction of 4-hour battery storage systems. Otherwise, grid demand is low when solar generation is unavailable.

Most electric utilities experience peak demand in summer, though many are now developing somewhat smaller winter peaks. Solar is generally available during the summer peak, though it is less available during winter peaks due to reduced insolation resulting from lower sun angles, shortened daylight hours, increased cloudiness and snow accumulation on the collectors. Wind may become unavailable for periods of days when the weather is hot and still. Wind turbines may also become unavailable in winter due to icing of the blades, unless they are equipped with blade heating capability.

Utility regulation currently requires renewable generator output to be used when available, but utilities must be prepared to meet grid demand regardless of renewable generation availability. This issue becomes more critical as the market penetration of intermittent renewable generation increases.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: September 6, 2022

Climate scientists & politics: Simpleton versus wicked scientists

In which wicked scientists are the good guys.

Activism by climate scientists has been the topic of numerous prior blog posts at Climate Etc.  Such activism is generally focused on eliminating fossil fuels.  This post presents a new framing for the activism issue. While many scientists prefer to remain in the ivory tower, others desire to engage in the messiness of politics and policy making.  Why most scientists reject admonitions to “stay in their lane,” there are more and less useful ways for scientists to engage with politics.

Simpleton climate scientists

I’m defining ‘simpleton climate scientists’ to be academics, mostly in disciplines that are far afield from the core discipline of climate dynamics, who think that both the climate problem and its solutions are simple.  Their preferred modes of activism are twitter rants, demonstrations and increasingly civil disobedience.

The issue of simpleton scientists was brought to the forefront last week by a publication in Nature Climate Change entitled Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action.   The authors are faculty members in the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Cardiff: (continue reading)

Climate scientists & politics: Simpleton versus wicked scientists

Society employs incentives and disincentives in numerous ways to influence the actions of various members of society. Sometimes these incentives and disincentives are soft and subtle, while at other times they are brutal and explicit.

The US federal government’s effort to force the transition of the US energy economy from a mixed-fuel economy to an “all-electric everything” energy economy based on renewable electricity generation and storage is becoming a brutal and explicit combination of incentives and disincentives.

Developers of renewable electricity generation projects are provided a variety of federal and state incentives which accelerate their development, reduce their installation costs, offset a portion of their operating costs; and, provide generation priority when renewable generation is available. Government also touts that these renewable generators produce lower cost energy and will result in reduced energy costs, to encourage the public to support the transition to renewables. Similar incentives are available for the purchase of electric vehicles; and, the federal government has begun supporting development of the public fueling infrastructure for electric vehicles.

While these various incentives have encouraged the adoption of renewable generation and electric vehicles, the Administration has determined that the process is not proceeding as rapidly as necessary to support the US “commitments” under the Paris Accords. Therefore, government has imposed numerous disincentives to coal production, consumption and export; and, taken numerous steps to limit exploration for and production of domestic oil and natural gas.

The federal government has established a schedule for the elimination of coal-fired electric generation, as well as a schedule for the elimination of all fossil-fueled electric generation. It has also established a schedule for elimination of all fossil fuel consumption in the US. These schedules would ultimately result in the elimination of the coal, oil and natural gas industries, with the questionable exception of oil and gas for use as chemical feedstocks. These schedules would also end production of vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (ICE), requiring full conversion to electric vehicle production by 2035.

Significant questions remain regarding the practicality of heavy-duty electric vehicles, including over-the-road tractors, construction equipment, farm equipment, railroad engines, ships and aircraft. There are suggestions that these applications could be fueled with renewable fuels such as bio-diesel, ethanol or hydrogen.

The federal government is also currently proposing incentives for the installation of electric heat pumps and for the replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances, to achieve an “all-electric everything” energy economy by 2050. These replacements would impose significant costs over and above the cost of the replacement appliances and equipment, including building electric service upgrades, building electric wiring modifications and utility grid capacity expansion. The “all-electric everything” grid conversion combined with expected energy demand and consumption growth through 2050 would require the electric grid to expand by a factor of approximately four by 2050.

Growing public resistance to industrial wind farms, industrial solar collector arrays and electric transmission infrastructure might require more aggressive federal and state government involvement in siting approvals, including eminent domain actions.

        Beatings will continue until morale improves.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Andy May

Date: August 30, 2022

Are fossil-fuel CO2 emissions good or bad?

This is the transcript, with minor edits to get it into blog post format, of my keynote speech to the Division of Professional Affairs, at the second International Meeting for Applied Geoscience and Energy Convention in the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston on August 30, 2022.

In the great climate change debate between Princeton Professor, emeritus, William Happer and University of Melbourne Professor David Karoly, they were asked the following question by the moderator, James Barham:

“The IPCC’s official position may be summarized as making four claims: global warming is a well-established fact; it is anthropogenic; it is a major problem for humanity; and concerted global governmental action is required to combat it.”

James Barham and TheBestSchools.org

In this talk we will only cover a portion of the second and third parts of the question, which we rephrase as “Is burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere a good thing, or a bad thing for humanity.” The other facets of the question are well covered in my latest book. Much of this talk is from Chapter 10.

In answer to the question, Professor Happer wrote:

“There is no scientific evidence that global greenhouse gas emissions will have a harmful effect on climate. Quite the contrary, there is very good evidence that the modest increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the Industrial age has already been good for the Earth and that more will be better.” (continue reading)

Are fossil-fuel CO2 emissions good or bad?